Divs-poole

JAPANESE TERTIARY EDUCATION 

(Matsumoto 1984), and Communicating with the Japanese (Neustupny 1987) 

introduce Japanese concepts such as haragei (literally, “the art of the belly” or 

“belly performance,” indicating the ability to communicate in silence) or amae 

(dependency) as keys to understanding Japanese communication style.  

With the postwar economic success of Japan, the business world has been 

particularly enamored with Japanese negotiating and management, often discussing 

styles of communication and thought. Three terms that have been much 

discussed—nemawashi,  kaizen and hansei—are distinctive social mechanisms 

through which the professoriate addresses the challenge of university reform. 

Considering the import that most Japan experts in crosscultural business 

communications give to the categories of nemawashi, kaizen and hansei, there has 

been a lack of concomitant critical microanalysis. It is assumed that these concepts 

operate universally in Japanese interactions and are culturally specific, unique to 

Japan. I feel there is certainly room for ethnomethodological analysis of the 

language surrounding these indigenous categories, however. 

Nemawashi 

The first of these “mechanisms” is nemawashi, which means literally “to bind the 

roots of a tree before its transplantation” and is a term used often in business and 

institutional situations in Japan to refer to the common practice of explanation and 

negotiation on an unofficial level beforehand, to smooth the acceptance of an idea 

among decision makers in an official meeting context. Nemawashi, slightly 

different but similar to the concept of “spadework” important to American and 

European businesspeople, is a concept that is said to derive from the propensity for 

what is described as “consensus,” “conflict-avoidance” or “harmony” (often coined 

as  wa in the vernacular) in Japanese organizations (Rohlen 1973, 1974). This 

normative depiction of Japan, and especially Japanese organizations, as 

“harmonious” has been questioned, following what Matsunaga  (2000a) and 

Wright (1994) have pointed out as a trend in the anthropological literature on 

organizations generally, from earlier models of consensus (the Human Relations 

school) to more recent models of conflict (Manchester School studies). Certainly I 

would not describe the social environment at EUC as especially “harmonious,” 

though admittedly there are certain elements of these stereotypical Japanese 

“virtues” evident in meeting contexts. 

In one of the earlier ethnographies of a Japanese organization, in this case a 

bank, Rohlen described how most section chiefs submit problems to the entire 

group (though they have the authority to make all decisions)—to either the rule of 

consensus or, after discussion, to decide themselves. “Group processes require 

considerable time, and to push for an early consensus or to fail to involve everyone 

can lead to resentment and opposition” (Rohlen 1974, p. 107). Part of this process 

is “spadework,” facilitating consensus and inclusion, since objections or new ideas 

offered by others in the group may be discovered in advance. Of course sounding 

out the other side before making decisions, or even proposals, lends certain 

37

 

---

CHAPTER 1 

“vagueness to the early stages of Japanese negotiating activity that often smacks of 

furtiveness to foreigners” (March 1990, p. 31). So, the argument goes, it behooves 

western businessman to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of such 

“uniquely Japanese” cultural practices.  

Rohlen (1974) considers the importance in Japanese organizations of the 

procedures of discussion and participation and comments insightfully on this 

element of Japanese organizational behavior. “For the Japanese, the procedures of 

discussion and participation are institutionalized, office groups are far more 

sensitive to the process of inclusion, and their leaders are far more inherently 

equipped to manage this form of direction than their American counterparts. In 

fact, the term for authority (keni) is not used in common thought to describe the 

dynamics of group activity. Acceptance (nattoku), participation (sanka), resistance 

(teikō), and opposition (hantai) are the dimensions of the problem, and impersonal 

rules and formal position are of little significance in adjusting behavior from the 

negative to the positive sides of these dimensions.” It is not a surprise to find that 

at EUC both premeeting negotiations (nemawashi) as well as postmeeting 

consultations (discussions in the professors’ room, offices, or local pub) are 

important (cf. McVeigh 1997, p. 90). However, there is also a distinct lack of 

nemawashi at EUC. I have been a part of many committee meetings that were 

decidedly unsuccessful specifically because of a lack of proper “spadework.”  

Such deliberations ensure that “just as one doesn’t try to pull up a tree stump 

without accounting for all the roots, one doesn’t try to impose a perspective or 

solution on a group without eliciting the (wholehearted) consent of each individual; 

even a single unloosened root can prevent the release of the tree stump” (White 

1987, pp. 17–18). Of course this may be a more insidious variation of consensus 

seeking as in Goffman’s idea of “working consensus,” which is when a person “is 

expected to suppress his immediate heartfelt feelings, conveying a view of the 

situation which he feels the others will be able to find at least temporarily 

acceptable. The maintenance of this surface of agreement, this veneer of 

consensus, is facilitated by each participant concealing his own wants behind 

statements which asserts values to which everyone present feels obliged to give lip 

service (Goffman 1959, p. 11–12).” This type of conflict avoidance may in fact be 

a cultural value that is not only an example of Japanese pedagogy and social ritual, 

but represents the value of harmony of purpose that some argue is at the core of 

Japanese morality and, hence, Japanese education (White 1987). This is viewed by 

many Japanese as “unique to Japan” (Dale 1988), even though Goffman’s 

description of working consensus is based on his observations of American society. 

Kaizen and Hansei 

Kaizen, literally meaning “good (or virtuous) reform,” is well known in the west 

(found in the Oxford English Dictionary as a loanword) as the Japanese business 

philosophy of continuous improvement of working practices and personal 

efficiency. The classic example is the alleged bottom-up approach of Japanese that 

38

 

---